Radis Community Care (Hereford Supported Living)

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

A system was in place to report, record and monitor incidents and accidents to help support people safely. We looked at a sample of the most recent incidents/accident records. These detailed the nature of the incident/accident, immediate actions taken, the outcome and any follow up actions taken.

Staff told us they were able to raise concerns outside of the management team to help prevent the development of a closed culture.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Policies and procedures were in place in relation to new referrals. The provider received pre-assessment and referral information from social care professionals which were used to develop people’s care plans and risk assessments.

Hospital passports were in place to provide hospital staff with key information about a person in the event of a hospital admission.

People’s relatives told us they were involved in transitions. One person’s relative said, “[Person] been there 1 year, it was a big thing. We were concerned about sharing care between family and staff, but it’s been fantastic. We can’t fault them.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Procedures were in place to help safeguard people from abuse and improper treatment. Staff understood safeguarding, a staff member told us, “I would monitor for any signs of bruising, anxiety, withdrawal, low mood. If the person was in direct danger, it would be 999 call. I would document what I have observed with dates, times and facts and report to my manager for a safeguarding to be put in. I would use my knowledge of the training I have had.”

Relatives told us they were confident their family members were safe when being supported by care staff. A relative told us, “[Person] is absolutely safe, girls (staff) are amazing.”

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

All aspects of people’s support were assessed which included help they received in the home and within the community. Risk assessments identified possible issues staff might face whilst working alone in a person’s own home and how they should manage the risk. Whilst risks were identified and people were kept safe, the assessments emphasised people’s need to maintain their independence.

Potential risks to people’s safety were assessed appropriately and risk assessments included detailed measures in place to help reduce risks. People’s risk assessments included details of relevant risks, triggers and control measures to help protect them. Risk assessments were comprehensive, and person centred.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Staff managed risks within people’s homes, with their consent, to keep them safe. The provider undertook a thorough risk assessment of people’s homes to ensure both the safety of the staff and the people who lived in them.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. A member of staff told us, “I do not feel rushed, my manager and I put the rotas together and are working well.”

Staff were recruited in line with legislative requirements which ensured vulnerable people being supported by the provider were kept safe. Staff received regular supervision, appraisals and ongoing support to do their jobs.

Staff had received mandatory training in line with the provider’s policy. This included training to meet people’s needs, for example training for eating disorders, epilepsy, assistance dog awareness, and training around learning disability and autistic people.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Staff managed the risk of infection via the use of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves and aprons, and frequent cleaning and hand washing. Staff had received training in infection prevention and control, to support their understanding of best practice. Staff reported there were plentiful supplies of gloves, aprons, and other PPE available.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Where people needed support with their medicines, staff took sole responsibility of the administration, which ensured doses were neither missed nor repeated.People’s care plans detailed the support people needed to manage their medicines, and levels of independence people wished to maintain. Staff were trained to administer medicines and their competency to do so was regularly reviewed. One person’s relative told us, “Medicines are well managed, never been an issue. They get him to take it better than me that’s a big relief to be honest. It was a big worry, but they have been on top of it.”

Where people were prescribed medicines on a when required basis (PRN), there were appropriate protocols in place to advise staff on what circumstances and how to give these medicines.

Monthly medicines audits were in place. These were effective and identified medicines administration errors, however, the action following issues identified was not always recorded. We raised this with the management of the service who told us they would expand on this in their next medicines administration audit.

The service maintained effective communication with GPs and pharmacies to ensure people had access to the correct medicines at the right time.